Justin Amash introduces own version of Afghan withdrawal resolution

[MRoCkEd]

http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/justin-amash/statement-on-resolutions-to-withdraw-united-states-armed-forces-from-afghanistan/190530850986329

tl;dr: Amash opposes Kucinich's withdrawal resolution because it cites the unconstitutional War Powers Resolution. So he introduced his own withdrawal resolution which Kucinich and Ron Paul have cosponsored.

I really recommend reading his full explanation, though. He is a true constitutionalist.

[brenden.b]

Wow. Amash continues to impress.

[eduardo89]

Go Amash!

[sonofshamwow]

But... but... I thought he was a neocon!

:)

[eduardo89]

But... but... I thought he was a neocon!

:)

Nope, we're back on the Amash bandwagon....at least till next vote

[crazyfacedjenkins]

From the comments:

Justin, it seems convenient for you to decide what is constitutional and what isn't. While I certainly support ending these endless wars, I'm curious to know why you don't respect the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to pass legislation to overturn court decisions it can do so, rather than having individual members declare that this or that is "unconstitutional."What I did to my eyes after reading such mindless dribble.

http://bibledemystified.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/gouged-out-eye.jpg

[JoshLowry]

Use a little self moderation when posting please.

[Feeding the Abscess]

But... but... I thought he was a neocon!

:)

Nobody who has kept an eye on Amash has called him a neocon.

[nayjevin]

I can't dislike him from his explanations. Has he explained his donation to McCain though?


AMASH, JUSTIN A. MR.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49546
MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL TOOLS/ATTORNE

MCCAIN, JOHN S.
VIA JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC.
08/30/2008 500.00 28933161590

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
03/21/2008 300.00 28990870122

AMASH, JUSTIN A. MR.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49546
MICHIGAN INDUSTRIAL TOOLS/CONSULT

PAUL, RON
VIA RON PAUL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
12/15/2007 400.00 28931047182

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

[low preference guy]

I can't dislike him from his explanations. Has he explained his donation to McCain though?

my gut tells me that his explanation will be that Obama was worse.

[TheState]

Here's the text, http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj112-49

[TheDriver]

http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/justin-amash/statement-on-resolutions-to-withdraw-united-states-armed-forces-from-afghanistan/190530850986329

tl;dr: Amash opposes Kucinich's withdrawal resolution because it cites the unconstitutional War Powers Resolution. So he introduced his own withdrawal resolution which Kucinich and Ron Paul have cosponsored.

I really recommend reading his full explanation, though. He is a true constitutionalist.

How much will it cost (to withdrawal)? Because didn't he vote against one democrat's plan because he didn't know if the cost estimates were correct? What's Amash's cost estimates?

[crazyfacedjenkins]

i can't dislike him from his explanations. Has he explained his donation to mccain though?



http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

ouch!

[enrique]

He gave that money after he won his republican primary for state house. He also, as you can see, gave money to Ron Paul when it wasn't exactly popular among any establishment republicans. That was sort of a bold move on his part.

And he probably didn't like Obama either.

[Brett85]

my gut tells me that his explanation will be that Obama was worse.

That's why I voted for McCain in the general. I didn't want the Democrats to have total control over everything.

[nayjevin]

With that thinking, $300 to the GOP, $400 to Ron, and $500 to McCain isn't all that bad... as a political statement, supporting the party and making inroads may be worth it. I know people I respect who will take any Republican over any Democrat, but I'm wary of that thinking. I also know people I respect who would vote for Hillary so that the country gets more angry sooner. There are a lot of ways to look at this. I really like reading Amash's explanations though, he's obviously a bright guy, and my inclination is to believe he's trying to do the right thing (I don't usually believe this about politicians).

[crazyfacedjenkins]

That's why I voted for McCain in the general. I didn't want the Democrats to have total control over everything.

OUCH! Still stuck in that left-right paradigm. If you are going to waste your time with some useless shit like voting, why not make it count? Write your name in, vote Nader, vote for Mickey Mouse anything but a republicrat.

[RileyE104]

Posted by Amash on facebook:


On Thursday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) will offer a privileged resolution on the House floor to withdraw all of the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan by the end of the year. I support Rep. Kucinich's intention in writing the resolution. However, because of the way the resolution is written, it is unconstitutional and I cannot vote for it.

The Kucinich resolution, H Con Res 28, requires the President to withdraw our forces using a mechanism in the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution was passed over a presidential veto in 1973 as the Vietnam War wore on. Among other things, the War Powers Resolution allows Congress to order the President to withdraw Armed Forces from abroad if a simple majority of the House and Senate pass a resolution to that effect.

This mechanism within the War Powers Resolution—commonly called the "legislative veto"—is unconstitutional. Art. I, Sec. 7, of the Constitution requires all legislation that has the effect of law to "be presented to the President." The War Powers Resolution's legislative veto attempts to perform an end run around the Constitution's presentment requirement. Every President since 1973 has viewed the legislative veto as unconstitutional, and in a different context, the Supreme Court held the mechanism violates the Constitution. I believe Rep. Kucinich is aware of the constitutional issue with the legislative veto but is proceeding anyway because the War Powers Resolution guarantees a speedy vote on the resolution's subject, removing our forces from Afghanistan.

As I have stated repeatedly, I will vote "present" on legislation in three circumstances: (1) when I support the legislation's goals, but the legislation uses improper means; (2) when Representatives have not been given a reasonable amount of time to consider the legislation; or (3) when I have a conflict of interest, such as a personal or financial interest in the legislation—a circumstance that hasn't happened yet and I don't anticipate happening.

Because I support the goals of the Kucinich resolution yet the resolution uses unconstitutional means, I intend to vote "present." I also have introduced my own resolution, H J Res 49, as a constitutional alternative to the Kucinich resolution. My resolution is nearly identical to the Kucinich resolution except that my resolution takes the form of ordinary legislation and will require the President's signature. If the President vetoes my resolution, Congress would have to override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote, as Art. I, Sec. 7, of the Constitution requires. Reps. Kucinich and Ron Paul (R-TX-14), among others, are original cosponsors of my resolution.

By using the ordinary and constitutional means to write my resolution, I am not guaranteed a vote, and it's unlikely the House will consider the legislation. Nonetheless, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I take that oath seriously, and I consider the constitutional implications of every action I take as a Representative in Congress.

[TheDriver]

"Present"--LAME!

[MRoCkEd]

Threads merged

[muzzled dogg]

/votes present in this thread

edit - dude i dunno wh y i keep accidentally closing threads

[surf]

worse than lame

[brenden.b]

"Present"--LAME!

He explains why he is voting "Present" and how his Resolution is more Constitutionally sound and you call it lame? Wow....absurd, much?

[Feeding the Abscess]

He explains why he is voting "Present" and how his Resolution is more Constitutionally sound and you call it lame? Wow....absurd, much?

It is lame. The very fact that we're in war is unconstitutional, along with the vast majority of actions taken by Congress. Sporting fidelity to the Constitution is nice, but when you're playing under a different set of rules, it amounts to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[brenden.b]

It is lame. The very fact that we're in war is unconstitutional, along with the vast majority of actions taken by Congress. Sporting fidelity to the Constitution is nice, but when you're playing under a different set of rules, it amounts to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Perhaps we should demand more from our supposed ally in Kucinich than go after the guy who is at least explaining his methods to us. Amash is actually doing his duty in upholding the Constitution. Kucinich should be doing the same exact thing, as should the rest of the crowd.

[Chester Copperpot]

From the comments:
What I did to my eyes after reading such mindless dribble.

http://bibledemystified.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/gouged-out-eye.jpg


Justin, it seems convenient for you to decide what is constitutional and what isn't. While I certainly support ending these endless wars, I'm curious to know why you don't respect the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to pass legislation to overturn court decisions it can do so, rather than having individual members declare that this or that is "unconstitutional."

im not exactly sure what the commenter is getting at with that quote.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Perhaps we should demand more from our supposed ally in Kucinich than go after the guy who is at least explaining his methods to us. Amash is actually doing his duty in upholding the Constitution. Kucinich should be doing the same exact thing, as should the rest of the crowd.

That would be great as an ideal.

However, reality requires a different approach. Once we get more like-minded congresspersons we can work on idealistic measures.

[nayjevin]

If D.C. was all Amashes, it would be terrible on votes like this. But as one man, if he sticks to the strict Constitutional approach, he'll be a good example and leader of that approach. And if he becomes a desirable ally to other legislators, and becomes known for withholding his vote for procedure, he could potentially be in a position to pressure bills to be both written and read more carefully.

I would have serious doubts if he hadn't introduced similar legislation, and I'll still be cautious.

[sonofshamwow]

That would be great as an ideal.

However, reality requires a different approach. Once we get more like-minded congresspersons we can work on idealistic measures.

This is the most dangerous mindset somebody who claims to supports liberty can have. There is nothing idealistic about following the Constitution. It's idealistic to think that straying from it to achieve some unconstitutional goal is going to end anywhere other than in tyranny.

[sonofshamwow]

Amash just put this FA Hayek quote up on his FB page and I think it sums up his position perfectly:

"We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for desirable purposes." —F.A. Hayek

[Feeding the Abscess]

This is the most dangerous mindset somebody who claims to supports liberty can have. There is nothing idealistic about following the Constitution. It's idealistic to think that straying from it to achieve some unconstitutional goal is going to end anywhere other than in tyranny.

Hardly.

1. Context - the wars have been waged extra-Constitutionally. Clearly, the Constitution has done nothing to prevent presidents from acting as a tyrant, evidenced by any number of executive/congressional actions. It is up to the citizens and their representatives to reverse the tyrannical actions undertaken by our political class, and if measures that restrict liberty are undertaken by means outside the Constitution, any measure taken against said actions should be acceptable. As in warfare, playing by the rules when your opponent does not is literally suicide.

2. The Constitution is not the be all end all; it is merely a means to an end (individual liberty). Rather than hold infallible trust in the Constitution, hold infallible trust in the goal of liberty. The Constitution, without proper backing of the citizenry and congressional representatives, is merely a piece of paper with a bunch of signatures from old dead guys.

[Slutter McGee]

Hardly.

1. Context - the wars have been waged extra-Constitutionally. Clearly, the Constitution has done nothing to prevent presidents from acting as a tyrant, evidenced by any number of executive/congressional actions. It is up to the citizens and their representatives to reverse the tyrannical actions undertaken by our political class, and if measures that restrict liberty are undertaken by means outside the Constitution, any measure taken against said actions should be acceptable. As in warfare, playing by the rules when your opponent does not is literally suicide.

2. The Constitution is not the be all end all; it is merely a means to an end (individual liberty). Rather than hold infallible trust in the Constitution, hold infallible trust in the goal of liberty. The Constitution, without proper backing of the citizenry and congressional representatives, is merely a piece of paper with a bunch of signatures from old dead guys.

So you suggest we become like the social-cons? Support the constitution until it conflicts with our goals and ideals?

Sincerely,

Slutter mcGee

[Feeding the Abscess]

No. The crime of socons is not that they stray from the Constitution; their crime is that they attempt to impinge upon the liberty of individual citizens. That's an important distinction to make.

The Constitution does not grant us rights; it is merely representation and acknowledgment of the freedoms we inherit as individuals. Additionally, as the Constitution can be - and has been - amended to fit the agenda of centralized government, placing it on a level of importance above the philosophy of liberty would be, as I see it, erroneous. As it stands, there are several amendments with which our movement finds disagreement. You could say that we already partake in the hypothetical you described above, as our support of the Constitution does not include the 16th amendment.

[Brett85]

No. The crime of socons is not that they stray from the Constitution; their crime is that they attempt to impinge upon the liberty of individual citizens. That's an important distinction to make.

The Constitution does not grant us rights; it is merely representation and acknowledgment of the freedoms we inherit as individuals. Additionally, as the Constitution can be - and has been - amended to fit the agenda of centralized government, placing it on a level of importance above the philosophy of liberty would be, as I see it, erroneous. As it stands, there are several amendments with which our movement finds disagreement. You could say that we already partake in the hypothetical you described above, as our support of the Constitution does not include the 16th amendment.

Define "social con." What issues are we talking about?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Any issue in which a social conservative would impose his or her morality onto others by way of government regulation.